cnc-mcp

List Alarms

cnc_list_alarms

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Crosswork platform alarms, newest first, to identify why devices or applications are unhealthy. Read-only, with paging and an open-alarms-only default for quick triage.

Instructions

List Crosswork platform alarms (device reachability, collection, application health, ...), newest first as the platform orders them.

Read-only. Use it to find out why something is unhealthy before digging into devices or providers. Alarms are paged with a SQL-like criteria string ('select * from alarm limit N page M'); no other filtering is exposed. The platform reports no total, so 'has_more' means the page came back full — request the next page to check.

Args: open_only: True for open alarms only (default), False for all. limit / page: page size and 0-based page number.

Returns: str: Markdown with one line per alarm (category, description, created time, id, acknowledged flag, event count; the Events detail is omitted), or JSON: {"total": null, "count": int, "page": int, "page_size": int, "items": [{"AlarmId": str, "AlarmCategory": str, "Description": str, "Created": str, "Updated": str, "Acknowledge": bool, "object_id": str, "origin_app_id": str, "events_count": int, "Events": [...]}, ...], "has_more": bool, "next_page": int|null} On failure: "Error: ".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	0-based page number (e.g. 0).
`limit`	No	Alarms per page (e.g. 20).
`open_only`	No	True (default) for open alarms only; False to include cleared.
`response_format`	No	'markdown' for human-readable output, 'json' for complete data.	markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: paging is done via a SQL-like criteria string, no total is reported, and 'has_more' just means the page came back full. These quirks materially affect correct invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and easy to scan, but the description is bloated by an Args block that duplicates the schema and a very long Returns block that restates a full JSON shape despite an output schema existing. Those sections do not fully earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, paging, filtering limits, and error format. The only excess is redundant return-value detail, not a gap in coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The Args block restates open_only, limit, and page without adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Crosswork platform alarms') and even enumerates what the alarms cover (device reachability, collection, application health) plus ordering ('newest first'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings (devices, providers) by positioning itself as the diagnostic entry point.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'find out why something is unhealthy before digging into devices or providers,' which routes the agent to deeper sibling tools. It also notes that 'no other filtering is exposed' beyond the criteria string, an implicit constraint. No explicit when-not-to-use, so not a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.